All about U.S Congress’s new bill and its intent to protect open-source developers

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-02-28Last updated on 2026-02-28

Abstract

A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers introduced the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act on February 26, aiming to clarify liability for blockchain developers. The bill seeks to protect open-source software developers from being prosecuted under money-transmitting laws, particularly amending Section 1960 of the U.S. Code to limit liability to entities that control customer assets or execute transfers. It comes amid growing regulatory scrutiny and cases like Tornado Cash that raised concerns about criminalizing non-custodial developers. Industry groups, including the Solana Institute and the Blockchain Association, have endorsed the bill, emphasizing the need to distinguish between developers and financial intermediaries. The proposal is part of a broader legislative effort, alongside bills like the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and the GENIUS Act, to provide regulatory clarity and protect innovation in the crypto ecosystem.

A bipartisan coalition introduced the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act on 26 February. It aims to clarify liability for blockchain developers.

The proposal, led by Congressmen Scott Fitzgerald, Ben Cline, and Zoe Lofgren, arrived as regulatory pressure intensified around decentralized infrastructure. At the same time, prosecutions involving Tornado Cash amplified concerns about criminalizing open-source software development.

The bill, therefore, amends Section 1960 of the U.S Code, a statute originally designed to combat money laundering. However, enforcement trends increasingly extended its scope towards non-custodial developers who only publish or maintain code.

Under the proposal, liability would apply mainly to entities controlling customer assets or executing transfers on users’ behalf. Meanwhile, developers who simply write or distribute open-source software would fall outside prosecutorial reach.

Congressman Ben Cline emphasized the issue, stating, “For too long, federal overreach has blurred the line between bad actors and the innovators building next-generation technology.”

Similarly, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald had previously stated,

“For years, innovators and software developers have been caught in the crosshairs of an aggressive regulatory approach.”

Industry stakeholders rally behind developer protection bill

Early reactions to the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act emerged quickly across the blockchain policy ecosystem as the proposal entered public debate. Initial responses focused on the bill’s central premise of protecting non-custodial developers from money-transmitter liability.

The Solana Institute responded quickly, emphasizing the importance of developer protections at a critical stage for open-source infrastructure.

The organization stated,

“We’re grateful to Rep. Fitzgerald, Rep. Ben Cline, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren for championing developers at this critical junction for open-source software development and the crypto ecosystem with the introduction of the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act.”

Shortly afterwards, broader industry advocacy groups reinforced similar sentiments. The Blockchain Association, for instance, publicly endorsed the legislation through CEO Summer Mersinger.

These responses indicate coordinated industry approval, as stakeholders view the bill as establishing a clear boundary between open-source developers and custodial financial intermediaries.

Crypto bills reshape the U.S regulatory landscape

Recent statements from the Blockchain Association highlight rising momentum for developer protections in Washington. This advocacy also coincides with the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, S.3611, debated in early 2026. Despite passing the House in July 2025, the CLARITY Act is still in a stalled state.

As negotiations continue, advocates warn that removing developer exemptions could revive enforcement pressure. Meanwhile, the GENIUS Act added stablecoin guardrails while avoiding liability expansion towards software developers.

Parallelly, the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act narrows Section 1960 towards custodial actors.

Therefore, industry groups have intensified lobbying across dozens of Senate offices in late February 2026. BRCA now stands as a pivotal test for America’s evolving crypto regulatory framework.

Final Summary

U.S crypto legislation momentum strengthens developer protections, supporting innovation across major networks.
Policy alignment around BRCA and the CLARITY Act may reduce regulatory risk for leading assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbit1h ago

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbit1h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手1h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手1h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit3h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit3h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手5h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手5h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit6h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'